4 ms·

>When it was Furukawa’s turn to speak, he noted that Nintendo makes “playthings, not necessities” and that if consumers stop finding its products compelling, th

>When it was Furukawa’s turn to speak, he noted that Nintendo makes “playthings, not necessities” and that if consumers stop finding its products compelling, the company could be swiftly forgotten. Never. Never. A thousand times never. Some experiences are just fond memories. Others are formative. For me, getting 120 stars, defeating Ganondorf, unlocking Mewtwo, throwing green polka-dotted eggs-- those moments rank among the most defining times of my youth. More than Disney, Youtube, TV or any other entertainment company, Nintendo was there for me, and there for my friends. Happy or sad, when I was alone, I'd adventure in the rolling slopes of the Mushroom Kingdom. When I was with friends, we'd obliviate one another in a final destination. And when we were nowhere near our consoles, we'd argue about our escapades and the “strats”. Starcraft, Half Life, Age of Empires, and the like are all great, amazing games, and I love them so. But Nintendo has my childhood. Through-and-through. It would be unfortunate if they go down the path of Sega and and ruin their franchises. But I will cherish the memories they gave me. And I will never forget them.

trynewideas 8y ago
For a 128-year-old company, it could take two generations passing away for them to be forgotten and it'd still be swift by their measure.
- Alex3917 8y ago
  The best old movies will live forever thanks to the lists from AFI, BFI, etc. Eventually we’ll likely have better versions of things like this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_games_considered_the_best https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_games_consider... (Right now it’s still missing NetHack and a bunch of other basic stuff.)
  - z3phyr 8y ago
    Notice the number of games considered the best per year. Late 1990s and early 2000s have a bunch. Are people making lesser games nowadays? Or the stakes have increased?
    - qplex 8y ago
      The big AAA titles have grown to insanely complex multi 100$ million projects, so at least in that way the stakes are higher. Some good games that would deserve awards just don't get the media attention also.
    - Wohlf 8y ago
      My guess is editor bias, the people who edit Wikipedia are in their 20s and 30s so they put the games they grew up with. As younger people begin to edit the page, they'll do the same.
    - dfxm12 8y ago
      Look at the sources. Only 2 are from earlier than 2003. This list is driven primarily by nostalgia (and perhaps, cynically, secondarily by marketing budgets). It's rare that something will be declared "best ever" while it is still contemporary. It usually takes a little time to figure that out.
      - noxToken 8y ago
        It's a lot harder to stand out from the crowd these days. You can have a mechanic that does something perfect that makes your game the best among a sea of 20 clones, but rarely in this era are you going to find a game on an island alone that makes it shine like a Mario 64 or Grand Theft Auto III. Studios are (and to no fault of their one) making incremental improvements to previous titles.
    - crysin 8y ago
      Games have become increasingly more expensive and take much more time to develop. Especially with the new trend of having games be open-world or near open-world there's a lot more time that needs to be spent making sure the player can't break the game. That's at least in the AAA environment, and there's also been a pretty large decline in single-player based games with the rise of battle-royale and moba style games, there's a lot less churn going on. There's been a large spike in indie development though and with Steam no longer curating their store there may be even more lower price point games entering the market which could be good and bad as finding the true gems that can stand the test of time will become more difficult.
  - pattisapu 8y ago
    Nethack isn't on this year-by-year list because it transcends them all, as the best game of all time.
alexissantos 8y ago
I agree, but I love that they have this attitude. It keeps them hungry.

trynewideas 8y ago

For a 128-year-old company, it could take two generations passing away for them to be forgotten and it'd still be swift by their measure.

Alex3917 8y ago
The best old movies will live forever thanks to the lists from AFI, BFI, etc. Eventually we’ll likely have better versions of things like this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_games_considered_the_best https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_games_consider... (Right now it’s still missing NetHack and a bunch of other basic stuff.)
- z3phyr 8y ago
  Notice the number of games considered the best per year. Late 1990s and early 2000s have a bunch. Are people making lesser games nowadays? Or the stakes have increased?
  - qplex 8y ago
    The big AAA titles have grown to insanely complex multi 100$ million projects, so at least in that way the stakes are higher. Some good games that would deserve awards just don't get the media attention also.
  - Wohlf 8y ago
    My guess is editor bias, the people who edit Wikipedia are in their 20s and 30s so they put the games they grew up with. As younger people begin to edit the page, they'll do the same.
  - dfxm12 8y ago
    Look at the sources. Only 2 are from earlier than 2003. This list is driven primarily by nostalgia (and perhaps, cynically, secondarily by marketing budgets). It's rare that something will be declared "best ever" while it is still contemporary. It usually takes a little time to figure that out.
    - noxToken 8y ago
      It's a lot harder to stand out from the crowd these days. You can have a mechanic that does something perfect that makes your game the best among a sea of 20 clones, but rarely in this era are you going to find a game on an island alone that makes it shine like a Mario 64 or Grand Theft Auto III. Studios are (and to no fault of their one) making incremental improvements to previous titles.
  - crysin 8y ago
    Games have become increasingly more expensive and take much more time to develop. Especially with the new trend of having games be open-world or near open-world there's a lot more time that needs to be spent making sure the player can't break the game. That's at least in the AAA environment, and there's also been a pretty large decline in single-player based games with the rise of battle-royale and moba style games, there's a lot less churn going on. There's been a large spike in indie development though and with Steam no longer curating their store there may be even more lower price point games entering the market which could be good and bad as finding the true gems that can stand the test of time will become more difficult.
- pattisapu 8y ago
  Nethack isn't on this year-by-year list because it transcends them all, as the best game of all time.

alexissantos 8y ago

I agree, but I love that they have this attitude. It keeps them hungry.